TrainWreck Wrote:That is exactly why it needs to be revised, because myopic people believe that they are the only ones capable of understanding it, when the goal is to ensure that everyone understands it equally.

200 years ago it was probably more easily understood. The language was different then.

TrainWreck Wrote:Sounds like an interesting exercise - if you would like to initiate a discussion, please do so, otherwise I will contemplate the approach to such a contest, over some time.

It'd be difficult for me to devote hours to explaining it. BC did a pretty good thread on the Constitution. If you ever stumble across something you aren't sure about or see someone else not quite understanding part let me know and I'll do my best.

I would like to see to it that you are duly compensated for your perfection.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define realityTheism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines realityAtheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefully

germanyt Wrote:200 years ago it was probably more easily understood. The language was different then.
I understand it perfectly.
It'd be difficult for me to devote hours to explaining it. BC did a pretty good thread on the Constitution. If you ever stumble across something you aren't sure about or see someone else not quite understanding part let me know and I'll do my best.

I would like to see to it that you are duly compensated for your perfection.

While it's true that our laws have be understandable so that ignorance of the law can remain inexcusable, our tax laws are not written in a way that the common citizen can understand. In fact, the courts that prosecute people for tax infringements are "tax courts" with their own special judges, because regular judges aren't capable of ruling on these specific laws that even the common uneducated laborer has to be capable of fully understanding.

The US Constitution was written in language that is difficult to understand, even hundreds of years ago --- what's meant by "the right to bear arms"? Does this mean all weapons are legal? Does this mean that all people should be allowed to carry weapons? Does the right to carry weapons apply absolutely anywhere on US soil? Because of the vagueness or ambiguity in the language of some of these laws, we have a court system that attempts to translate their meaning. However, they still have to translate it in a way that we can follow (don't get me started on tax laws again).

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.

I would like to recommend that ignorance of state laws could be excusable for non-residents, and that the original constitution, or the Bill of Rights, provided for that provision - if Germanyt, or anyone, would like to argue that point I will provide the provision.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define realityTheism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines realityAtheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefully

(24-04-2012 11:23 AM)TrainWreck Wrote: I would like to see to it that you are duly compensated for your perfection.

While it's true that our laws have be understandable so that ignorance of the law can remain inexcusable, our tax laws are not written in a way that the common citizen can understand. In fact, the courts that prosecute people for tax infringements are "tax courts" with their own special judges, because regular judges aren't capable of ruling on these specific laws that even the common uneducated laborer has to be capable of fully understanding.

The US Constitution was written in language that is difficult to understand, even hundreds of years ago --- what's meant by "the right to bear arms"? Does this mean all weapons are legal? Does this mean that all people should be allowed to carry weapons? Does the right to carry weapons apply absolutely anywhere on US soil? Because of the vagueness or ambiguity in the language of some of these laws, we have a court system that attempts to translate their meaning. However, they still have to translate it in a way that we can follow (don't get me started on tax laws again).

The Second Amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It's Congress and Jefferson's opinion that preventing the right to bear arms (guns) made tyranny and oppression by the state too easy. It is a system of checks and balances that keeps the people from fearing their government and instead makes the government weary of it's people. This obvioulyy doesn't apply to minor civil disputes but should the federal governemnt ever decide to pull an Assad on it's citizens they will think twice when they think about all the weapons we have.

In short, the right to own guns is granted in order to keep the government from attacking it's citizens via military or law enforcement.

(24-04-2012 12:33 PM)TrainWreck Wrote: Yet, you do not recommend that it be rewritten???

I would like to recommend that ignorance of state laws could be excusable for non-residents, and that the original constitution, or the Bill of Rights, provided for that provision - if Germanyt, or anyone, would like to argue that point I will provide the provision.

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that excuses ignorance of a state law. I believe you have the 11th Amendment confused as it's the only one that sorta sounds like what you are saying.

The Eleventh Amendment

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

It states that individual states are not immune to suit brought to the federal court system by residents of another state or foreign country. California cannot dismiss a law suit just because it's filed by a resident of Oregon.

This is where that amendment came from.

Quote:In 1792 in South Carolina, Alexander Chisholm, the executor of the estate of Robert Farquhar, attempted to sue the state of Georgia in the Supreme Court over payments due him for goods that Farquhar had supplied Georgia during the American Revolutionary War. United States Attorney General Edmund Randolph argued the case for the plaintiff before the Court. The defendant, Georgia, refused to appear, claiming that, as a "sovereign" state, it could not be sued without granting its consent to the suit.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

I vote no based on the implications of the titles choices... REQUIRE? Not in anyway whatsoever does the US require a new constitution.

I do however believe it would be beneficial to reexamine in a sense to add more understanding to direct issues like the aid for happiness/life of the individual and better explanation for the establishment clause. Perhaps a bit close to the FDR like new bill of rights ideas would be better to be reworked in with the original.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It's Congress and Jefferson's opinion that preventing the right to bear arms (guns) made tyranny and oppression by the state too easy. It is a system of checks and balances that keeps the people from fearing their government and instead makes the government weary of it's people. This obvioulyy doesn't apply to minor civil disputes but should the federal governemnt ever decide to pull an Assad on it's citizens they will think twice when they think about all the weapons we have.

In short, the right to own guns is granted in order to keep the government from attacking it's citizens via military or law enforcement.

That's overly simplistic. Does this mean that we have the right to carry automatic weapons? How about bombs? How far does our right to defend ourselves against our government extend? The court system answers these questions because the writers of the Constitution are no longer around to answer them, and because technology brings up new questions all the time. Please don't make it sound like the answer is simple... I think I came up with a good example of an amendment whose meaning is still debated on a regular basis.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It's Congress and Jefferson's opinion that preventing the right to bear arms (guns) made tyranny and oppression by the state too easy. It is a system of checks and balances that keeps the people from fearing their government and instead makes the government weary of it's people. This obvioulyy doesn't apply to minor civil disputes but should the federal governemnt ever decide to pull an Assad on it's citizens they will think twice when they think about all the weapons we have.

In short, the right to own guns is granted in order to keep the government from attacking it's citizens via military or law enforcement.

That's overly simplistic. Does this mean that we have the right to carry automatic weapons? How about bombs? How far does our right to defend ourselves against our government extend? The court system answers these questions because the writers of the Constitution are no longer around to answer them, and because technology brings up new questions all the time. Please don't make it sound like the answer is simple... I think I came up with a good example of an amendment whose meaning is still debated on a regular basis.

IMO the only way to view it is as if it was the late 18th century. What types of weapons existed at the time. A cannon would have been the most serious weapon then. The federal government however, doesn't have the authority to regulate specific weapons. This should be granted to the states. But even then states can't regulate guns away because it would ultimately violate the 2nd amendment. If the federal government backed off of this issue then states could allow their citizens to vote on how regulated they should be. More local governments could restrict them further if they choose. But they can't ban them.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

(24-04-2012 01:55 PM)germanyt Wrote: There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that excuses ignorance of a state law. I believe you have the 11th Amendment confused as it's the only one that sorta sounds like what you are saying.

Yeah, I gave myself the option that it might be in the original constitution or Amendments, because I didn't want look it up, unless, I was challenged.

This quoting [SNIP] function kind of messes up the quoting, I hope this instance is corrected 04.29 - sorry for any problems in recognizing my argument

(25-04-2012 04:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote: I vote no based on the implications of the titles choices... REQUIRE? Not in anyway whatsoever does the US require a new constitution.

It's amazing to learn that this may be the collective belief of atheists.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define realityTheism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines realityAtheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefully